Chick-fil-a Issue Thing

[Norseman82]

Interesting editorial cartoon by Scott Stantis in today's Chicago Tribune:

[url="http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2012-07/71351320.jpg"]http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2012-07/71351320.jpg[/url]

[fides quarens intellectum]

I'm sure someone has already posted about this, but August 1 is Support Chick-fil-a Day (a good excuse for me to have some more Chick-fil-a).

https://www.facebook.com/events/266281243473841/

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343349192' post='2459169']
Sorry, it took me a minute to compose myself before I could respond to this.

Look, despite what "conservatives" will tell you, the world is not made up of some Armageddon-style brawl between God-fearing American patriots and liberal socialists. Let's cast aside, for a moment, the fact that "liberal" and "socialist" are a bit mutually exclusive as philosophies. The fact that gay people are irritated that Chik-Fil-A donates money to lobby causes in opposition to their own cause has nothing to do with conservatism, government, liberalism, socialism, or the price of tea in China. This is not a vast conspiracy of any wing, right or left. What you're looking at is simply humanity. People. That's it.

People want what they want. They tend to dislike and oppose those who like things that counter what they want. That is human nature, plain and simple. To try to boil this up in a pot and call it socialism or blame liberals is just, well, ridiculous. Gay people want to get married. Christians tend to hold the view that this is wrong. Somewhere in the middle is a lovely piece of chicken whose only goal in life is to get eaten. That is as complex as this situation is.

I just roll my eyes at the whole business. There is not a bogeyman under every rock, or a socialist in every boycott, or a Christian in every cow costume. Sometimes it's just a simple matter of I want versus you want.

And then there's the chicken. I want the chicken. 1% of the people are making 99% of us feel bad for wanting an effing sandwich. Mebbe we should occupy something. @@
[/quote]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343355654' post='2459201']
How exactly is me pointing out that this is not a complex issue "humanizing" and making it "better and fluffy"? I don't have to humanize, it's a human problem. Nowhere in the last week did a throng of homosexual zebras wanting marriage threaten to boycott a bunch of chicken-purveying Christian antelopes . . . [/quote]

So what exactly is the point of this quarreling?

Whether you want to admit it or not, what eagle_eye was saying is in fact a pretty accurate description of the contemporary left's agenda. Perhaps he should have said simply "the left" instead of "liberal-socialist," but it seems like this is quibbling over details. The undeniable truth is that the modern "liberal" left (as typified by most of the Democratic Party) is, and has been for decades, an unholy union of socialistic welfare-statism and radical sexual libertinism buttressed by state support (abortion-on-demand, taxpayer funding of abortion and contraception, "gay marriage," the HHS contraception mandate, etc., etc.)

In fact, support for state-supported sexual immorality (abortion on demand, state-sponsored homosexual "marriage," forcing employers to pay insurance covering contraceptives and abortifacients, and taxpayers to pay for abortion and contraception) is commonly known as "social liberalism."

Leftists/liberals have long espoused moral relativism and the overthrow of established Judeao-Christian moral standards, while true conservatism (at its best) recognizes, in the words of [url="http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/"]the great Russell Kirk[/url], an "enduring moral order."

You can quibble about whether "liberal" or "socialist" indeed properly describe the modern left (I increasingly use put "liberal" in quotation marks, as what is today commonly known as "liberalism" has increasingly little to do with either classical liberalism, or liberty. And while the American left may not be "socialist" in the strict definition of the word - involving direct government ownership of all means of production - it certainly seeks as much central government control over the economy, and most areas of life, as it can. "Fascist" might be a more accurate description of the current left's economic polices, but that's another loaded word.)

While you might not see social liberalism as being necessarily tied to the left's socialism/statism, the reality is that they are indeed often part of the same political agenda, and are in fact not completely unrelated. Leftists typically not only want to support a "right" to all forms of sexual immorality, they want to use the power of the state to enforce it and support it - as by forcing states to recognize homosexual "marriage," and forcing the taxpayer to fund abortion and contraception. I could go on more about this, but time/space is limiting, and I think you get the general idea.

This is not some wild and crazy Nazis-on-the-moon conspiracy theory, but simple current political reality, which can be easily confirmed by simply reading the Democratic Party platform, or by looking at the policy and voting records of virtually every Democratic politician at the national level.

As for the homosexual issue directly at hand, homosexuality has been around at least since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the push for states to recognize homosexual "marriage" - along with demonizing of any person or group that believes in the traditional definition of marriage as only between a man an woman - has only been around for a few decades. Fifty years ago, even the most flaming homosexual would likely see the insistence that homosexual liasons be legally recognized as being the same as marriage, and the attempt to silence or punish anybody who held a contrary view as being crazy.
This whole "gay rights" thing is indeed a recent political and social movement which is part of the "socially liberal" agenda.

Whether you want to admit it or not,there is indeed a culture war being waged in this country, and it's "social liberals" that are the aggressors.

You can deny this and take a head-in-the-sand no-enemies-on-the-left lets-all-get-along-and-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya approach, and pretend that any connection between the left and an immoral social agenda is purely in the heads of deranged conservatives, but that's a denial of reality.

It seems to me disingenuous to get one's panties all in a wad over someone claiming that liberals have an immoral agenda, while at the same time repeatedly insulting and mocking "conservatives" and "republicans."

But, I guess the whole idea that leftists/liberals support immorality such as abortion and homosexuality is just a crazed hallucination or lie made up by those awful conservatives, who are in fact the only [i]real[/i] bad guys.
Yeah, I think I get it now.



As an aside, listening to the local news, I hear there's huge lines at all the local Chick-fil-As. Looks like this nonsense may just completely backfire in the faces of the anti-Chick-fil-A crowd.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1343349192' post='2459169']
This is not a vast conspiracy of any [size=5][b]wing[/b][/size], right or left. [/quote]

Is that a pun? (considering the topic...)

[Papist]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1343363923' post='2459238']
I do give kudos to the ACLU for putting their principles first on this one in that warning to Chicago.
[/quote]

[img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif[/img]

[ardillacid]

I have never had Chick - fil - a. It sounds disgusting. Only southerners

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1343435931' post='2459504']
I have never had Chick - fil - a. It sounds disgusting. Only southerners
[/quote]
You're a pervert.

[Annie12]

It's delicious and I'm not southern.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1343438632' post='2459527']
You're a pervert.
[/quote]That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[4588686]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1343438632' post='2459527']
You're a pervert.
[/quote]


Well, you pegged him.










Some may get this. None will admit it.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1343440075' post='2459543']
Well, you pegged him.










Some may get this. None will admit it.
[/quote]

I admit it. What now?

[4588686]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1343440128' post='2459544']
I admit it. What now?
[/quote]



Now you die, Mr. Bond.

[BG45]

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/donald-a-perry-dead-chick-fil-a-vice-president-public-relations_n_1711438.html"]Chick Fil-A's Vice President for Public Relations Dies of Heart Attack[/url]

[missionseeker]

Today I read a comment about he must just like to hate people and since he can no longer hate black people, he needs to hate someone so it's the gay people.then they wrote,, and I quote "I bet 20 years ago black people weren't allowed to eat at chik-fil-a either"



Yes. In 1992 Dan Cathy stood in the doorway to make sure no black person came into ANY of his restaurants. Because you know, Jim Crow laws were still in effect in the south.

It's this kind of senseless stupidity and berating that really annoys me.

Edited July 28, 2012 by missionseeker

[Marie-Therese]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Oy vey. Posting in 2 posts because it said I quoted too much when I tried to post.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1343367109' post='2459250']
Parrot? I say the same for you. Now what? Call me a conspiracy theorists again?[/quote][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I'm going to step out here and assume, for the sake of discussion, that you believe I'm arguing from a "pro-liberal" viewpoint, and I'll forgive your peevish tone. Truth is, though, you don't know what I'm discussing. And what you said here makes absolutely no sense as a sentence. I'm not parroting anything, unlike some of your posts, which read like Rush Limbaugh show notes. They toe the party line, so to speak. While that'd be fine, if the party line were a solid argument, in this case it just diminishes the strength of what you're trying to argue. Want to make a statement about a culture at odds? That's a good discussion. But you're not making that point. As I said, several times, this is essentially a difference of ideologies between two groups. If you want to call it "liberal v. conservative," to fit it into your worldview, then fine. Go ahead. The fact that those labels are erroneously placed and poorly understood has heavy bearing on my point in general, but I'll give you a pass on not trying to go to that level.

[quote]If I am so wrong, it is up to you to explain and show why. Yelling at me and insulting me doesn't accomplish anything. However self-exalting your position by declaring:



If debating was this easy, everyone would pull out there "I automatically win and don't have to counter your argument."[/quote][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I wasn't yelling or insulting. I made simple observations. You might not have liked them, but that doesn't mean I was yelling or insulting anyone. If I had been insulting you, there would've been little doubt left that that was, in fact, what I was about.



[quote]Yes. It is. The socialistic liberal government in this nation is concerned with shutting down liberty.....especially religious liberty.

I believe you may have heard about the HHS mandate? It's been in the news.[/quote][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]And here is where you go off on a tangent to bring up every perceived assault from liberals on religious liberty. This discussion is not about any of those things, and they don't reinforce your point. You mean there are people who use political grandstanding to attack the Catholic Church, because they don't like what the Church stands for? The Church is GOING to be attacked. She should EXPECT it. Doesn't the Bible mention something about persecution? If you're surprised at the state of current politics, then I'd suggest that you might be missing a few key points about Christianity. Now this does not mean that people should take things lying down, and that isn't my point. It's a discussion that needs having in the public arena, for people to hear these things. [/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I'd like to take a brief moment here to state something that needs saying. The gay marriage argument is NOT an argument about religious liberty, sorry. Step aside from your personal feelings on the matter and look at it with an impartial and objective eye. One group of people desires to have access to some action/institution/etc. and another group feels that this access is immoral and desires to block it. At no point does the religious liberty of the dissenting group become threatened. No gay "marriage" will ever make a Catholic unable to practice their religion. No law is going to force a Catholic to take part in gay marriage, to perform them, or in any way be involved in them. Religious liberty is about your ability as a person to practice the faith of your choice. It is NOT about the fact that you have dogmatic disagreement with a particular law. If two gay persons have a legal "marriage" it does not in any way make you less able to be Catholic. [/font]


[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000][quote]They are all democrats and they are all working to stop Chick fil A from existing in their respective areas.[/quote][/color][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]If we want to discuss "conspiracy theory" then this is where you start rolling down the cliff. This has nothing to do with Chik-Fil-A. This argument isn't about a restaurant. It's about the power of political posturing. None of these idiots give three cr[/color]aps about a single fast food chain. What they care about is gaining points with voters. [/font]


[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000][quote]Now, again, it must be a conspiracy theory that they all come from the same liberal socialist ideology.[/quote][/color][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]YES!!! YES IT IS!!! This is not a conspiracy. It's called the ordinary course of politics. THIS IS WHAT POLITICS IS. To imagine a conspiracy here is to give credit to the intelligence of people who clearly demonstrate that they have none. They are nothing but average manipulators whose advantage is that those that they manipulate are grossly below average. That's all. The Wizard behind the curtain is just an old man with a machine. People seem to have this desire to ascribe some monumental force working behind the scenes to destroy their particular ideological platform, when the fact is that it's much simpler than that. As I said before, repeatedly, this is not a conspiracy. This is not a complex issue. It's two groups who have opposing viewpoints trying to get their way. I'm not certain what about that makes you so irritated. [/color][/font]